S+S couplers versus Ritchey/Dahon design

[Scott Gordo]

I've got an 853 tubed frame that I'm considering setting up as a
travel bike. I can get a pretty good price on having the S+S couplers
installed, though I don't think that includes installing separable
cables.

I'm also considering selling my current bike and investing in the
Ritchey Breakaway design.

As far as on-bike performance, is there any significant difference? Is
one superior to the other?

Thanks.

/s

 

[bfd]

On May 4, 10:19 am, Scott Gordo <[email protected]> wrote:
> I've got an 853 tubed frame that I'm considering setting up as a
> travel bike. I can get a pretty good price on having the S+S couplers
> installed, though I don't think that includes installing separable
> cables.
>
> I'm also considering selling my current bike and investing in the
> Ritchey Breakaway design.
>
> As far as on-bike performance, is there any significant difference? Is
> one superior to the other?
>
Both systems are good. The Ritchey system is something like 100g
lighter, does that make a difference to you?

I'm looking at the Cross breakaway, its a very nice bike. The only
thing is a complete bike will be in the $2500 or so range.

Another option is the new Dahon Tournado, which uses the breakaway
system. A complete Dahon Tournado retail for like $2K, not bad. The
only problem is I haven't been able to find any specs on the new
bike.

 

[SMS]

Scott Gordo wrote:
> I've got an 853 tubed frame that I'm considering setting up as a
> travel bike. I can get a pretty good price on having the S+S couplers
> installed, though I don't think that includes installing separable
> cables.
>
> I'm also considering selling my current bike and investing in the
> Ritchey Breakaway design.
>
> As far as on-bike performance, is there any significant difference? Is
> one superior to the other?
>
> Thanks.

I don't think that the Ritchey/Dahon design will fit into an airline
legal case (62" l/w/d). An S&S equipped bike will usually fit into their
special case.

With the S&S design you can lock the frame around a post and it's
difficult to steal without the special tool.

BTW, how much is "a good price" for the S&S installation?

If I was buying a new travel road bike, I think I'd just get a Gaerlan
gt20. It's 4130 not 853, but it's not clear what the Breakaway is either.

 

[Tim McNamara]

In article <[email protected]>,
SMS <[email protected]> wrote:

> Scott Gordo wrote:
> > I've got an 853 tubed frame that I'm considering setting up as a
> > travel bike. I can get a pretty good price on having the S+S
> > couplers installed, though I don't think that includes installing
> > separable cables.
> >
> > I'm also considering selling my current bike and investing in the
> > Ritchey Breakaway design.
> >
> > As far as on-bike performance, is there any significant difference?
> > Is one superior to the other?
> >
> > Thanks.
>
> I don't think that the Ritchey/Dahon design will fit into an airline
> legal case (62" l/w/d). An S&S equipped bike will usually fit into
> their special case.

According to the Ritchey Web site, their case is 9" x 26" x 29" which
adds up to 64". I don't know if you can make it fit into a smaller
suitcase by another maker. I also don't know how rigidly airlines
enforce sizes of suitcases. I've never seen anyone from an airline
measure a suitcase, but I have seen them weigh luggage.

> With the S&S design you can lock the frame around a post and it's
> difficult to steal without the special tool.

That's an odd basis for a recommendation.

 

[SMS]

Tim McNamara wrote:

> According to the Ritchey Web site, their case is 9" x 26" x 29" which
> adds up to 64". I don't know if you can make it fit into a smaller
> suitcase by another maker. I also don't know how rigidly airlines
> enforce sizes of suitcases. I've never seen anyone from an airline
> measure a suitcase, but I have seen them weigh luggage.

If it looks like a non-suitcase then they are likely to measure it. I
remember J. Gaerlan selling a Trident really large suitcase that was a
bit oversize, but it didn't look like a bicycle case or industrial case
so it would probably slip through okay. The Ritchey case looks too
strange, and it would attract the attention of a airline service
representative that was looking to nail someone with an oversize charge.

>> With the S&S design you can lock the frame around a post and it's
>> difficult to steal without the special tool.
>
> That's an odd basis for a recommendation.

Yeah, well a while back someone was asking for ways to securely lock a
bike. I remember Steve from S&S telling me that he sometimes locks his
bike by putting the frame around a post. Steve's a really good guy. He
used to show up on the San Francisco Bay Area folding bike rides.

 

[richard]

Unless Ritchey has changed something, my concern would be with that
downtube band. I don't know how well it will hold up after a few years.
The main thing is, though, if you can take it off (to pack it), you
can also drop, misplace, or whatever...

Scott Gordo wrote:
> I've got an 853 tubed frame that I'm considering setting up as a
> travel bike. I can get a pretty good price on having the S+S couplers
> installed, though I don't think that includes installing separable
> cables.
>
> I'm also considering selling my current bike and investing in the
> Ritchey Breakaway design.
>
> As far as on-bike performance, is there any significant difference? Is
> one superior to the other?
>
> Thanks.
>
> /s
>

 

[Qui si parla Campagnolo]

On May 4, 11:19 am, Scott Gordo <[email protected]> wrote:
> I've got an 853 tubed frame that I'm considering setting up as a
> travel bike. I can get a pretty good price on having the S+S couplers
> installed, though I don't think that includes installing separable
> cables.
>
> I'm also considering selling my current bike and investing in the
> Ritchey Breakaway design.
>
> As far as on-bike performance, is there any significant difference? Is
> one superior to the other?
>
> Thanks.
>
> /s

Both ride like 'bikes' If you use the S&S system suitcase, ya gotta
remove the right crank to get it in. Not so for the Ritchey or if you
use the S&S bike into a Ritchey case.

 

[daveornee]

On May 4, 11:19 am, Scott Gordo <[email protected]> wrote:
> I've got an 853 tubed frame that I'm considering setting up as a
> travel bike. I can get a pretty good price on having the S+S couplers
> installed, though I don't think that includes installing separable
> cables.
>
> I'm also considering selling my current bike and investing in the
> Ritchey Breakaway design.
>
> As far as on-bike performance, is there any significant difference? Is
> one superior to the other?
>
> Thanks.
>
> /s

Both ride like 'bikes' If you use the S&S system suitcase, ya gotta
remove the right crank to get it in. Not so for the Ritchey or if you
use the S&S bike into a Ritchey case.

I agree with Peter. Try packing them too for the way you will travel. Either way it is an investment.
What we chose may not be the best for you, but we liked S & S enough to put them on our tandem (packs in big case 5 layers deep), 1 touring bicycle (26" wheels to make packing much easier), and 1 mountain bicycle. With square taper bottom bracket axels it would not be easy with the S & S coupled option.

 

[Tim McNamara]

In article <[email protected]>,
daveornee <[email protected]> wrote:

> Qui si parla Campagnolo Wrote:
> > On May 4, 11:19 am, Scott Gordo <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > I've got an 853 tubed frame that I'm considering setting up as a
> > > travel bike. I can get a pretty good price on having the S+S
> > > couplers installed, though I don't think that includes installing
> > > separable cables.
> > >
> > > I'm also considering selling my current bike and investing in the
> > > Ritchey Breakaway design.
> > >
> > > As far as on-bike performance, is there any significant
> > > difference? Is one superior to the other?
> >
> > Both ride like 'bikes' If you use the S&S system suitcase, ya gotta
> > remove the right crank to get it in. Not so for the Ritchey or if
> > you use the S&S bike into a Ritchey case.
>
> I agree with Peter. Try packing them too for the way you will
> travel. Either way it is an investment.
>
> What we chose may not be the best for you, but we liked S & S enough
> to put them on our tandem (packs in big case 5 layers deep), 1
> touring bicycle (26" wheels to make packing much easier), and 1
> mountain bicycle. With square taper bottom bracket axels it would
> not be easy with the S & S coupled option.

Dave, I don't follow that last bit. How does the crank axle type have
an effect on packing the bike or the type of coupler?

 

[daveornee]

In article <[email protected]>,
daveornee <[email protected]> wrote:

<SNIP>. With square taper bottom bracket axels it would
> not be easy with the S & S coupled option.

Dave, I don't follow that last bit. How does the crank axle type have
an effect on packing the bike or the type of coupler?

When you pull the crank off a sqare tapered BB axle it is difficult, if not impossibile, to put it back on in the same position each time you go through take-apart, pack, un-pack, put-together. There seems to be some wear in the aluminum part inside the crank such that each time you repeat the cycle the crank moves further up (in on) the axle.
At least that is what we experienced with traveling with out S & S coupled tandem. I used a torque wrench each time to tighten the crank bolt, but each time the crank moved closer to the center of the frame. It creeped in about 1.5 cm before I could no longer use the crank on that BB axle. I had a choice of getting a longer axle and going through the same cycle again after another ~15 trip or changing to a externally splined (or some other type bottom bracket and crank assembly). Since changing from the tapered-square BB axle we haven't seen the issue.
I don't know if the take apart scenario is the same for Ritchey design and case.... but with the S & S suitcase scenario taking off the crank was the only way to make things fit.
Does this "explanation" help you, Tim?

 

[Tim McNamara]

In article <[email protected]>,
daveornee <[email protected]> wrote:

> Tim McNamara Wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > daveornee <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > <SNIP>. With square taper bottom bracket axels it would
> > > not be easy with the S & S coupled option.
> >
> > Dave, I don't follow that last bit. How does the crank axle type
> > have an effect on packing the bike or the type of coupler?
>
> When you pull the crank off a sqare tapered BB axle it is difficult,
> if not impossibile, to put it back on in the same position each time
> you go through take-apart, pack, un-pack, put-together. There seems
> to be some wear in the aluminum part inside the crank such that each
> time you repeat the cycle the crank moves further up (in on) the
> axle. At least that is what we experienced with traveling with out S
> & S coupled tandem. I used a torque wrench each time to tighten the
> crank bolt, but each time the crank moved closer to the center of the
> frame. Since changing from the tapered-square BB axle we haven't seen
> the issue.

Ah. I suppose there is a limited number of times you can take off and
replace a square taper crank. Since I do it rarely, I don't expect that
this will contribute to the failure mode of my cranks.

Packing a tandem down into a suitcase- or unpacking it- ought to draw a
crowd.

 

[daveornee]

In article <[email protected]>,
daveornee <[email protected]> wrote:

> Tim McNamara Wrote:
<SNIP>
Packing a tandem down into a suitcase- or unpacking it- ought to draw a
crowd.

The "crowd" always seems to disperse when I ask them to help by holding on to a piece of the frame or boom tubes when I am putting things togther. I had a promise of a copy of a movie when I put in the case on Prince Edward Island, but I still haven't seen the movie.

 

[A Muzi]

>>> On May 4, 11:19 am, Scott Gordo <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> I've got an 853 tubed frame that I'm considering setting up as a
>>>> travel bike. I can get a pretty good price on having the S+S
>>>> couplers installed, though I don't think that includes installing
>>>> separable cables.
>>>> I'm also considering selling my current bike and investing in the
>>>> Ritchey Breakaway design.
>>>> As far as on-bike performance, is there any significant
>>>> difference? Is one superior to the other?

>> Qui si parla Campagnolo Wrote:
>>> Both ride like 'bikes' If you use the S&S system suitcase, ya gotta
>>> remove the right crank to get it in. Not so for the Ritchey or if
>>> you use the S&S bike into a Ritchey case.

> daveornee <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I agree with Peter. Try packing them too for the way you will
>> travel. Either way it is an investment.
>>
>> What we chose may not be the best for you, but we liked S & S enough
>> to put them on our tandem (packs in big case 5 layers deep), 1
>> touring bicycle (26" wheels to make packing much easier), and 1
>> mountain bicycle. With square taper bottom bracket axels it would
>> not be easy with the S & S coupled option.

Tim McNamara wrote:
> Dave, I don't follow that last bit. How does the crank axle type have
> an effect on packing the bike or the type of coupler?

With a self-extractor either type would be straightforward. It's the
splined cranks which are easily screwed up by being off-spline. Square
tapers are hard/impossible to misalign.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

 

[daveornee]

>>> On May 4, 11:19 am, Scott Gordo <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> I've got an 853 tubed frame that I'm considering setting up as a
>>>> travel bike. I can get a pretty good price on having the S+S
>>>> couplers installed, though I don't think that includes installing
>>>> separable cables.
>>>> I'm also considering selling my current bike and investing in the
>>>> Ritchey Breakaway design.
>>>> As far as on-bike performance, is there any significant
>>>> difference? Is one superior to the other?

>> Qui si parla Campagnolo Wrote:
>>> Both ride like 'bikes' If you use the S&S system suitcase, ya gotta
>>> remove the right crank to get it in. Not so for the Ritchey or if
>>> you use the S&S bike into a Ritchey case.

> daveornee <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I agree with Peter. Try packing them too for the way you will
>> travel. Either way it is an investment.
>>
>> What we chose may not be the best for you, but we liked S & S enough
>> to put them on our tandem (packs in big case 5 layers deep), 1
>> touring bicycle (26" wheels to make packing much easier), and 1
>> mountain bicycle. With square taper bottom bracket axels it would
>> not be easy with the S & S coupled option.

Tim McNamara wrote:
> Dave, I don't follow that last bit. How does the crank axle type have
> an effect on packing the bike or the type of coupler?

With a self-extractor either type would be straightforward. It's the
splined cranks which are easily screwed up by being off-spline. Square
tapers are hard/impossible to misalign.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Do you think that self extracting crank bolts would put the crank back at the exact position on the axle after 15 removals/replacements if each time you torqued the crank bolt down to the specified torque?
I don't think my issue was with misalignment or challeges of getting things dirty on the interfaces, I think that it was just a matter of wear on the aluminum from taking off and putting on the crank so many times. I didn't measure the increments, but it would turn out to be ~ 1.0 mm each cycle.
After 15 times it added up to ~ 1.5 cm closer to the center line of the frame.
I needed to adjust the Jump-Stop and FD stops for proper operation about 7 times (once every 2 trips).
I don't have any trouble aligning the new crank/new axle with the splines/

 

[41]

daveornee wrote:

> Do you think that self extracting crank bolts would put the crank back
> at the exact position on the axle after 15 removals/replacements if
> each time you torqued the crank bolt down to the specified torque?
> I don't think my issue was with misalignment or challeges of getting
> things dirty on the interfaces, I think that it was just a matter of
> wear on the aluminum from taking off and putting on the crank so many
> times. I didn't measure the increments, but it would turn out to be ~
> 1.0 mm each cycle.
> After 15 times it added up to ~ 1.5 cm closer to the center line of the
> frame.

ah, something seriously wrong there.

Sounds like it was wearing out while you were riding it?
e

 

[M-gineering]

daveornee wrote:
> A Muzi Wrote:
>>>>> On May 4, 11:19 am, Scott Gordo <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> I've got an 853 tubed frame that I'm considering setting up as a
>>>>>> travel bike. I can get a pretty good price on having the S+S
>>>>>> couplers installed, though I don't think that includes installing
>>>>>> separable cables.
>>>>>> I'm also considering selling my current bike and investing in the
>>>>>> Ritchey Breakaway design.
>>>>>> As far as on-bike performance, is there any significant
>>>>>> difference? Is one superior to the other?
>>>> Qui si parla Campagnolo Wrote:
>>>>> Both ride like 'bikes' If you use the S&S system suitcase, ya
>> gotta
>>>>> remove the right crank to get it in. Not so for the Ritchey or if
>>>>> you use the S&S bike into a Ritchey case.
>>> daveornee <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> I agree with Peter. Try packing them too for the way you will
>>>> travel. Either way it is an investment.
>>>>
>>>> What we chose may not be the best for you, but we liked S & S
>> enough
>>>> to put them on our tandem (packs in big case 5 layers deep), 1
>>>> touring bicycle (26" wheels to make packing much easier), and 1
>>>> mountain bicycle. With square taper bottom bracket axels it would
>>>> not be easy with the S & S coupled option.
>> Tim McNamara wrote:
>>> Dave, I don't follow that last bit. How does the crank axle type
>> have
>>> an effect on packing the bike or the type of coupler?
>> With a self-extractor either type would be straightforward. It's the
>> splined cranks which are easily screwed up by being off-spline. Square
>> tapers are hard/impossible to misalign.
>> --
>> Andrew Muzi
>> www.yellowjersey.org
>> Open every day since 1 April, 1971
> Do you think that self extracting crank bolts would put the crank back
> at the exact position on the axle after 15 removals/replacements if
> each time you torqued the crank bolt down to the specified torque?
> I don't think my issue was with misalignment or challeges of getting
> things dirty on the interfaces, I think that it was just a matter of
> wear on the aluminum from taking off and putting on the crank so many
> times. I didn't measure the increments, but it would turn out to be ~
> 1.0 mm each cycle.
> After 15 times it added up to ~ 1.5 cm closer to the center line of the
> frame.
> I needed to adjust the Jump-Stop and FD stops for proper operation
> about 7 times (once every 2 trips).
> I don't have any trouble aligning the new crank/new axle with the
> splines/
>
>
Get a cheaper Shimano bottom bracket. They have a collar on the axle for
a crankstop

--
---
Marten Gerritsen

INFOapestaartjeM-GINEERINGpuntNL
www.m-gineering.nl

 

[daveornee]

Do you think that self extracting crank bolts would put the crank back at the exact position on the axle after 15 removals/replacements if each time you torqued the crank bolt down to the specified torque?
I don't think my issue was with misalignment or challeges of getting things dirty on the interfaces, I think that it was just a matter of wear on the aluminum from taking off and putting on the crank so many times. I didn't measure the increments, but it would turn out to be ~ 1.0 mm each cycle.
After 15 times it added up to ~ 1.5 cm closer to the center line of the frame.
I needed to adjust the Jump-Stop and FD stops for proper operation about 7 times (once every 2 trips).
I don't have any trouble aligning the new crank/new axle with the splines/

I gave this another thought:
After each trip the tandem was put together at home and ridden here too, so that would be 30 times of putting the crank off and on for 1.5 cm movement, or ~ 0.5 mm increment move each cycle.
Removing the crank and replacing it each time was an issue for us. I thought I would mention it to the OP in case that would be an issue for the OP. We resolved our issue by changing out the cranks and bottom brackets to the splined version. They don't move and have stayed tight each time we travel.

 

[M-gineering]

daveornee wrote:
I didn't measure the increments, but it would turn out to be ~
>> 1.0 mm each cycle.
>> After 15 times it added up to ~ 1.5 cm closer to the center line of the
>> frame.

impressive: typical depth of engagement for a square taper is about
1/2", with the crank being about 5/8" thick. Moving the crank 5/8" up
the spline without the washer bootoming out on the axle or the
chainwheels hitting chainstays is rather good


--
---
Marten Gerritsen

INFOapestaartjeM-GINEERINGpuntNL
www.m-gineering.nl

 

[daveornee]

daveornee wrote:
I didn't measure the increments, but it would turn out to be ~
>> 1.0 mm each cycle.
>> After 15 times it added up to ~ 1.5 cm closer to the center line of the
>> frame.

impressive: typical depth of engagement for a square taper is about
1/2", with the crank being about 5/8" thick. Moving the crank 5/8" up
the spline without the washer bootoming out on the axle or the
chainwheels hitting chainstays is rather good


--
---
Marten Gerritsen

INFOapestaartjeM-GINEERINGpuntNL
www.m-gineering.nl

Yes, OK.
Cranks are gone so I can't check them any more.
Axles did bottom out on the washers. These were original XT cranks on original steel square tapered Shimano bottom brackets that came on our Santana steel tandem. ~1.5 cm is what I remember measuring, but the issue of the cranks moving a small amount was clear to me as I needed to adjust FD stops and JumpStop 7 times during the life/trips of those cranks.

 

[A Muzi]

-snip-
daveornee wrote:
> Do you think that self extracting crank bolts would put the crank back
> at the exact position on the axle after 15 removals/replacements if
> each time you torqued the crank bolt down to the specified torque?
> I don't think my issue was with misalignment or challeges of getting
> things dirty on the interfaces, I think that it was just a matter of
> wear on the aluminum from taking off and putting on the crank so many
> times. I didn't measure the increments, but it would turn out to be ~
> 1.0 mm each cycle.
> After 15 times it added up to ~ 1.5 cm closer to the center line of the
> frame.
> I needed to adjust the Jump-Stop and FD stops for proper operation
> about 7 times (once every 2 trips).
> I don't have any trouble aligning the new crank/new axle with the
> splines/

OK, I can see that.

I don't believe many of our S+S customers install/remove cranks more
than once or twice a year so it hasn't come up as a common problem but
you make a good point.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971